Thanks! That's the goal. We may not have the highest production quality, but our hope is to cover a wide range of philosophy topics, including a lot that no one else is covering.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I feel like fun little videos with fancy animations and elaborate editing are cool and all but I think your way is best. You have quantity and quality without spending unneccessary energy on things that are really just extremely time consuming secondary cosmetics. Informative, direct, well-written and fat free.
13:23 Category Theory is based on isomorphism in the same way that Set Theory is based on equality. In Category Theory, isomorphism has a much broader definition that can apply to structure _and/or_ content. In this context, all the TM's, the facts (objects, relations, propositions) are a complete category while the TB's (words, concepts) are representations of that category. For example, the real numbers as objects and their addition as a relationship are TM's with "Re" and "+" as representations of those TM's and thus TB's. Having set up those TB's, now anywhere one sees "Re" or "+", they are seen as bearers of their respective truths, of the real number line and addition respectively. 16:23 Category Theory resolves these problems IMO and is perfectly in line with the Atomistic Theory of 18:00 26:49 Sure there are. If you read equality as "is exactly like" and isomorphism as "is like", then we have that all the sentences are like each other (isomorophic) because they all use the same alphabet, use a finite number of letters from that alphabet, and encodes English. This is all but a trivial isomorphism granted, since any random finite sequence of letter satisfies these conditions except the last one. 30:28 Seems to me that if a context is pre-established, these problems don't occur. Einstein proves Newton wrong only in the context of Einstein or Newton is out of context if used at v>>c; at v
Thank you for the very informative video. I am studing the correspondence theory. It begins to be too complex if we try to go further, to the nature of truth bearers, the relationship with the problem of perception, what it has to do with acts of verification. Then I feel myself within a labirint of questions and possible answers.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth seems to be the best approximation to what is commonly experienced as "truth". However, to state the obvious: The meaning of the word "truth" shifts, and is related to the context within which it is used. So how and why are we to bothering to articulate or define an essence that will apply to all usages? A person I knew claimed that he was a mathematician, so I asked him "What is a number?" He replied: a number is a quantity. I retorted: But what about your social security number, street address, phone number, the VIN number on your car, sku numbers and so on?... The meaning shifts so as that any one explanation or definition of number does not suffice. But perhaps the concept of "a number being a quantity" could be called a "root" or the more common fundamental meaning, upon which all other meanings rest... and so with truth, the realist or correspondence position is the best explanation for the most common notion of truth, with all of the others being accessories. Looks like I am advocating a type of Pluralism, if my take on a subsequent video is correct.
Yes, it does sound like you are advocating a pluralist theory of truth. Though interesting, I'm skeptical that even any of those theories can fully describe what we mean by truth.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene But you're making a truth claim. It seems intuitively that all attempts to recover a theory of truth collapse into some form of correspondence theory. By the way, you do a great job with these videos. This is a wonderful channel.
It seems that most of the problems for the correspondence theory of truth come from the fact that our language was not designed with the correspondence theory in mind. Instead, our language is ad hoc, made of many pieces designed by many people to mean many things. Therefore we should expect that a pluralist theory is the only way to faithfully represent what is meant by the diverse truthbearers of our language. Since we had no standardized theory of truth when we were developing our language, we should expect a good theory of truth to be as long as a dictionary, with a distinct kind of truth for almost every word based on how each word was intended to be used.
Ansatz66 Language is only part of it though. Correspondence theory has a much deeper problem - namely that it claims to be about objective truths, which humans simply have no access to outside of axiomatic systems. In this sense, Correspondence theory is just useless and never describes what humans are actually talking about when they say that something is true, which is mostly about how their beliefs relate to propositions. Of course, better languages can assist in that process, but it's clear that other theories of truth will be far more useful if one wants to understand what's actually being talked about.
Gnomefro "It claims to be about objective truths, which humans simply have no access to outside of axiomatic systems." Even so, that seems to be a fair representation of what people are talking about when they say something is true. The fact that we have no access to such things has never stopped us from talking about them.
@@Gnomefro "it claims to be about objective truths, which humans simply have no access to outside of axiomatic systems." Human experience precedes axiomatic systems, so your objection doesn't have any force.
"Meinongian ontology allowing for facts that don't exist to correspond to truthbearers". Yes, I think it can. A negative proposition which is true refers to a negative fact as its objective; it is true by virtue of its correspondence to a negative fact. As positive facts are to serve as verifiers of true positive propositions, negative facts are to serve as verifiers of true negative propositions. Russell argued that there must be negative facts to account for what makes true negative propositions true and false positive propositions false.
I wondered how I could share you with my subs, then I thought, would you like to come to my Deep Thought Hangout with myself, Ozy, Gary Edwards and others on the subject of concepts, Sunday June 7th 9pm BST. If you are, I'll send you an invite just before. Let me know! I'd love to hear you thoughts on the topic.
***** Hey! Thanks for the invite and the support. I'm living in West Africa right now, so I won't be able to make it, its amazing if the internet is fast enough to let me upload my videos!
***** Hey! Thanks for the invite and the support. I'm living in West Africa right now, so I won't be able to make it, its amazing if the internet is fast enough to let me upload my videos!
Interesting, so one can make a distinction between facts and states of affairs. I'm not sure if I agree with that distinction myself, since I don't see how a fact wouldn't be identical with or part of a state of affairs, but good to know
Great video! I've been putting off watching it for a while, but I'm glad I finally did. One question though: How is there not an isomorphism between a negation and facts about reality? the negation corresponds to the lack of that which the negation predicates over, correct? If so, how is this relation not an isomorphic relation?
+Praepes The problem is that there is not object known as the lack of something. I forget who made the joke of the wiater asking, "would you like no milk with your no sugar?" or something like that. The point is that there is nothing I can point to in the world that is a lack. There is no object that it corresponds to. If there is no pencil on my desk, then then is no objecto or the word pencil to correspond to. Thanks for watching!
That makes sense. I am curious about how, especially Bertrand Russell, intended to make correspondence theory applicable to mathematics. To me is seems as if mathematical symbols most sensibly denote the conceptions of said symbols. For instance, "1" denoting the concept of oneness or singularity; π denoting ‘the ratio of a circle's circumference to it’s diameter-ness’ if you will; then growing in complexity to and even beyond, in set theory, ∞ connoting the idea of the inconceivable value of infinity. While I feel like numbers often times may be a correspondent in this way through the quantization of objects, I could't say this for all of maths. A mathematics, I believe, is that which is derived from some basic set of axioms. And the branch of maths as a whole being the unity or formulation of many different sets of axioms. Such as how by rejecting the 5th premise in euclidian geometry, the parrallel postulate, you entail hyperbolic geometry. Now both can, and have been used to represent reality but I couldn't say I think that the entailments of these sets of axioms are inherent to the nature of reality, such as neo-platonists. What in fact I think is, if anything, the derivation from the nature of existence and or reality is Logic, but thats a massive topic that I couldn't get into right this second. ( I just might have to do so on your Aristotle viedo on presupositionalism though.)
Overonator In the end, philosophers use objections to strengthen their positions. Many of the objections that I offer have responses, which in turn have objections and so on ad nauseam. Whether or not there is a reasonable objection just depends on where you stop the chain.
Overonator Most philosophers are selfish and think that's their own position. Or, rather, hold their position because it is the one that has no reasonable objections to it in their minds. Similarly, I have yet to see a sufficient objection to skepticism, so it seems to me that it has no reasonable objections. I'm not saying its impossible, just that I haven't seen them yet.
My definition of TRUTH is...a belief that survives all challenges to it. It is not limited to individuals. It accounts for many truths being subjective. It can also account for absolute truths(if there are any). It accounts for the passage of time and evidence changing. If a truth does not survive a challenge, it is no longer considered to be a truth. Within any statement of a truth, it will either survive in whole or part of it may survive or all of it could perish.
This channel has everything literally 90 percent of youtube searches I do this channel has got something for me to consume. Thank you!
Thanks! That's the goal. We may not have the highest production quality, but our hope is to cover a wide range of philosophy topics, including a lot that no one else is covering.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I feel like fun little videos with fancy animations and elaborate editing are cool and all but I think your way is best. You have quantity and quality without spending unneccessary energy on things that are really just extremely time consuming secondary cosmetics. Informative, direct, well-written and fat free.
13:23
Category Theory is based on isomorphism in the same way that Set Theory is based on equality.
In Category Theory, isomorphism has a much broader definition that can apply to structure _and/or_ content.
In this context, all the TM's, the facts (objects, relations, propositions) are a complete category while the TB's (words, concepts) are representations of that category. For example, the real numbers as objects and their addition as a relationship are TM's with "Re" and "+" as representations of those TM's and thus TB's. Having set up those TB's, now anywhere one sees "Re" or "+", they are seen as bearers of their respective truths, of the real number line and addition respectively.
16:23
Category Theory resolves these problems IMO and is perfectly in line with the Atomistic Theory of 18:00
26:49
Sure there are. If you read equality as "is exactly like" and isomorphism as "is like", then we have that all the sentences are like each other (isomorophic) because they all use the same alphabet, use a finite number of letters from that alphabet, and encodes English. This is all but a trivial isomorphism granted, since any random finite sequence of letter satisfies these conditions except the last one.
30:28
Seems to me that if a context is pre-established, these problems don't occur.
Einstein proves Newton wrong only in the context of Einstein or Newton is out of context if used at v>>c; at v
I don't see any legitimate objection to the Correspondence Theory in light of your replies.
Thank you for the very informative video. I am studing the correspondence theory. It begins to be too complex if we try to go further, to the nature of truth bearers, the relationship with the problem of perception, what it has to do with acts of verification. Then I feel myself within a labirint of questions and possible answers.
+Claudio Costa I'm glad I could help. It is surely a very complicated theory, and even with a 30 minute video I have only scratched the surface.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth seems to be the best approximation to what is commonly experienced as "truth". However, to state the obvious: The meaning of the word "truth" shifts, and is related to the context within which it is used. So how and why are we to bothering to articulate or define an essence that will apply to all usages?
A person I knew claimed that he was a mathematician, so I asked him "What is a number?" He replied: a number is a quantity. I retorted: But what about your social security number, street address, phone number, the VIN number on your car, sku numbers and so on?... The meaning shifts so as that any one explanation or definition of number does not suffice.
But perhaps the concept of "a number being a quantity" could be called a "root" or the more common fundamental meaning, upon which all other meanings rest... and so with truth, the realist or correspondence position is the best explanation for the most common notion of truth, with all of the others being accessories.
Looks like I am advocating a type of Pluralism, if my take on a subsequent video is correct.
Yes, it does sound like you are advocating a pluralist theory of truth. Though interesting, I'm skeptical that even any of those theories can fully describe what we mean by truth.
Carneades.org But, why are you skeptical?
@@CarneadesOfCyrene But you're making a truth claim. It seems intuitively that all attempts to recover a theory of truth collapse into some form of correspondence theory. By the way, you do a great job with these videos. This is a wonderful channel.
It seems that most of the problems for the correspondence theory of truth come from the fact that our language was not designed with the correspondence theory in mind. Instead, our language is ad hoc, made of many pieces designed by many people to mean many things. Therefore we should expect that a pluralist theory is the only way to faithfully represent what is meant by the diverse truthbearers of our language.
Since we had no standardized theory of truth when we were developing our language, we should expect a good theory of truth to be as long as a dictionary, with a distinct kind of truth for almost every word based on how each word was intended to be used.
Ansatz66 Language is only part of it though. Correspondence theory has a much deeper problem - namely that it claims to be about objective truths, which humans simply have no access to outside of axiomatic systems. In this sense, Correspondence theory is just useless and never describes what humans are actually talking about when they say that something is true, which is mostly about how their beliefs relate to propositions. Of course, better languages can assist in that process, but it's clear that other theories of truth will be far more useful if one wants to understand what's actually being talked about.
Gnomefro "It claims to be about objective truths, which humans simply have no access to outside of axiomatic systems."
Even so, that seems to be a fair representation of what people are talking about when they say something is true. The fact that we have no access to such things has never stopped us from talking about them.
@@Gnomefro "it claims to be about objective truths, which humans simply have no access to outside of axiomatic systems." Human experience precedes axiomatic systems, so your objection doesn't have any force.
"Meinongian ontology allowing for facts that don't exist to correspond to truthbearers". Yes, I think it can. A negative proposition which is true refers to a negative fact as its objective; it is true by virtue of its correspondence to a negative fact. As positive facts are to serve as verifiers of true positive propositions, negative facts are to serve as verifiers of true negative propositions. Russell argued that there must be negative facts to account for what makes true negative propositions true and false positive propositions false.
It seems that many objections to correspondence theory are resolved by holding a foundationalist structure of justification...
Which is why most philosophers adhere to the correspondence theory of truth.
I wondered how I could share you with my subs, then I thought, would you like to come to my Deep Thought Hangout with myself, Ozy, Gary Edwards and others on the subject of concepts, Sunday June 7th 9pm BST. If you are, I'll send you an invite just before. Let me know! I'd love to hear you thoughts on the topic.
***** Hey! Thanks for the invite and the support. I'm living in West Africa right now, so I won't be able to make it, its amazing if the internet is fast enough to let me upload my videos!
***** Hey! Thanks for the invite and the support. I'm living in West Africa right now, so I won't be able to make it, its amazing if the internet is fast enough to let me upload my videos!
Carneades.org it certainly likes to repeat your comments ;-). Whereabouts in West Africa?
You made me feel ashamed of myself for laughing at the corny-ass "isomorphism" jokes. Keep up the great work on the channel!
Haha, thanks. Sometimes I feel like adding in some small jokes to these videos. Thanks for appreciating them!
Awesome thanks for uploading.
Andrew Wells No problem, thanks for watching!
Subatomic statement examples used quark names. Well played.
Thanks! 😁 Good catch.
Wittgenstein it is, not Wittenstein, right?
0:34 That " ReALitY " reminded me of funny sound effects IDK why. 😂😂😂
Am I mistaken, or are all the graphics on this channel a reference to Hofstadter's Ant Fugue?
Interesting, so one can make a distinction between facts and states of affairs. I'm not sure if I agree with that distinction myself, since I don't see how a fact wouldn't be identical with or part of a state of affairs, but good to know
Paradoxarn Yep. And different philosophers draw that distinction in different ways.
you get a like just for the voice work
Thanks! 😊
Great video! I've been putting off watching it for a while, but I'm glad I finally did. One question though: How is there not an isomorphism between a negation and facts about reality? the negation corresponds to the lack of that which the negation predicates over, correct? If so, how is this relation not an isomorphic relation?
+Praepes The problem is that there is not object known as the lack of something. I forget who made the joke of the wiater asking, "would you like no milk with your no sugar?" or something like that. The point is that there is nothing I can point to in the world that is a lack. There is no object that it corresponds to. If there is no pencil on my desk, then then is no objecto or the word pencil to correspond to. Thanks for watching!
That makes sense. I am curious about how, especially Bertrand Russell, intended to make correspondence theory applicable to mathematics. To me is seems as if mathematical symbols most sensibly denote the conceptions of said symbols. For instance, "1" denoting the concept of oneness or singularity; π denoting ‘the ratio of a circle's circumference to it’s diameter-ness’ if you will; then growing in complexity to and even beyond, in set theory, ∞ connoting the idea of the inconceivable value of infinity. While I feel like numbers often times may be a correspondent in this way through the quantization of objects, I could't say this for all of maths. A mathematics, I believe, is that which is derived from some basic set of axioms. And the branch of maths as a whole being the unity or formulation of many different sets of axioms. Such as how by rejecting the 5th premise in euclidian geometry, the parrallel postulate, you entail hyperbolic geometry. Now both can, and have been used to represent reality but I couldn't say I think that the entailments of these sets of axioms are inherent to the nature of reality, such as neo-platonists. What in fact I think is, if anything, the derivation from the nature of existence and or reality is Logic, but thats a massive topic that I couldn't get into right this second. ( I just might have to do so on your Aristotle viedo on presupositionalism though.)
I wish there was a topic on philosophy for which there were no objections, or I would settle for "no reasonable objections."
Overonator In the end, philosophers use objections to strengthen their positions. Many of the objections that I offer have responses, which in turn have objections and so on ad nauseam. Whether or not there is a reasonable objection just depends on where you stop the chain.
Carneades.org
Do you think there is any position in philosophy for which there are no reasonable objections in your opinion?
Overonator Most philosophers are selfish and think that's their own position. Or, rather, hold their position because it is the one that has no reasonable objections to it in their minds. Similarly, I have yet to see a sufficient objection to skepticism, so it seems to me that it has no reasonable objections. I'm not saying its impossible, just that I haven't seen them yet.
Carneades.org
I figured you would say that about skepticism. :]
My definition of TRUTH is...a belief that survives all challenges to it. It is not limited to individuals. It accounts for many truths being subjective. It can also account for absolute truths(if there are any). It accounts for the passage of time and evidence changing. If a truth does not survive a challenge, it is no longer considered to be a truth. Within any statement of a truth, it will either survive in whole or part of it may survive or all of it could perish.
"Resilience Theory of Truth"
I keep on lookinh at that ant
It is the CorrespondANTce theory of truth. :D
ant